2.
LIGHT METAL AGE, DECEMBER 2016 35
performance of aluminum armor alloys by adding blast
protection while enhancing AP and FSP protection. Im-
proved occupant safety and crew survivability from blast,
fragmenting, and armor piercing threats for combat and
tactical wheeled vehicles became a primary objective, as
shown in a survey of major threats affecting combatants
in current warfare (Figure 3).
Aluminum producers have responded by developing
more advanced armor solutions. Constellium, which is a
global producer for a broad scope of markets and appli-
cations, including the aerospace, defense, and transporta-
tion industries, has provided a number of new aluminum
armor solutions under the KEIKOR™ brand (named after
the armor of Samurai warriors, which was able to defeat
many contemporary threats). Two alloys, which draw their
heritage from aerospace applications, emerged as the
preferred choice based on an excellent combination of
strength, blast/ballistic protection, corrosion resistance,
and high formability in intermediate tempers. These ar-
mor plate products are KEIKOR 2139™ and KEIKOR
7056™. This article will highlight alloy 2139, which has
been standardized in MIL-DTL 32341A.
Constellium Plate Alloy for Armor
Keikor 2139 was developed for armor applications
in the 0.500-4.000 inch thickness range. Originally,
this alloy was developed for aircraft wing applications
under AMS 4468, but its high strength and tough-
ness balance prompted examination as an armor al-
loy. Standardized ballistic testing, described earlier,
was used to develop a ballistic table for the four types
of threats in the AP and FSP categories. Alloy 2139
is a high strength/toughness copper-magnesium-
manganese-silver alloy with superior corrosion resis-
tance and ability to resist softening at elevated tem-
peratures. Corrosion resistance, specifically stress
corrosion cracking (SCC), is a very important aspect
because these vehicles are used in various environ-
ments, including marine. The early precursors in the
2xxx armor plate family, specifically armor 2519-T87,
has improved ballistic performance when compared
to legacy armor but has very poor SCC resistance due
to its high copper level. Thus, 2519 is not suitable for
multiuse environments. Chemical analysis and mini-
mum tensile properties of 2139 are shown in Tables
II and III.
Keikor 2139 is produced in two discrete tempers,
an AP/FSP resistant temper (T8) and a blast resistant
temper (T84). Alloy 2139 T8 (AP/FSP resistant) is pro-
duced using a proprietary level of cold work and fol-
lowed by artificial aging treatment to attain balanced
properties. It is typically used for the applique or side
and top armor. Ballistic testing indicated superior per-
formance when compared to the two legacy armor so-
lutions, i.e., 5083-H131 and 7039-T64. A relative com-
parison of the V50 velocity for two threats—20 mm FSP
and .50 caliber AP—is shown in Figure 4. This chart
also includes Constellium’s Keikor 7056 produced in
two discrete tempers, AP resistant and blast resilient
(which are not discussed in this article but may be cov-
ered in the future). The chart indicates that, for 1.28
inch thick armor plate, V50 for the 20 mm FSP threat
is about 2,550 and 2,650 ft/sec for 5083-H131 and
7039-T64, respectively. Alloy 2139-T9 exhibits V50 of
about 3,050 ft/sec. In practical terms it means that, for
Figure 3. Survey of the major threats facing contemporary soldiers.
ELEMENTS SYMBOL 2139
ALLOY
2
Silicon Si 0.10
Iron Fe 0.15
Copper Cu 4.5
-­‐
5.5
Manganese MN 0.20
-­‐
0.60
Magnesium Mg 0.20
-­‐
0.80
Chromium CR 0.005
Zinc Zn 0.25
Titanium Ti 0.15
Vanadium V 0.05
Zirconium Zr N/A
Lithium Li N/A
Silver Ag 0.15
-­‐
0.60
Other,
max.
Each -­‐-­‐-­‐ 0.05
Other,
max
Total
3/
-­‐-­‐-­‐ 0.15
Aluminum Al Remainder
Table II. Chemical analysis of alloy 2139 (Aluminum Association reg-
istered limits).
Thickness,
inches
Class
I
Class
II
Class
I
Class
II
Class
I
Class
II
0.500
to
3.000,
incl.
67 71
3/ 64 63
3/ 9 9
3/
3.001
to
4.000,
incl.
67 N/A 64 N/A 9 N/A
Tensile
Strength,
ksi
Yield
Strength,
0,2%
Offest,
ksi
Elongation
percent
Table III. Minimum mechanical properties of alloy 2139 (MIL-DTL
32341A)
Figure 2. Examples of armor test projectiles: 20 mm fragment simula-
tor (a), .50 caliber AP round (b), and .30 caliber M2AP round (c).
(a)
(b)
(c)

3.
LIGHT METAL AGE, DECEMBER 201636
a given armor thickness, alloy 2139 offers 400-500 ft/
sec extra margin of safety. Similarly, in the .50 Cal AP
area alloy 5083-H131 and 7039-T64 offer V50 of 1,780
and 1,910 ft/sec, respectively. Alloy 2139 exhibits V50
of 2,110 ft/sec. Margin of safety ranges from 200 to 330
ft/sec. Thus, manufacturers of armored vehicles can
either provide extra survivability or consider a down
gauge of the design yielding equivalent protection
with lighter, more maneuverable construction.
Keikor 2139’s minimum ballistic properties compare
favorably with the legacy armor offering. More signifi-
cant are the blast characteristics of the second temper,
2139-T84. Due to its higher strength and toughness,
2139-T84 experiences lower plastic deformation under
a standardized blast test when compared to legacy 5083
armor. In a standardized test, a sample plate is exposed
to a blast of equivalent weight of TNT with constant
standoff distance. The amount of buckling of perma-
nent plastic deformation is measured after the blast.
Figure 5 indicates that, under standardized test condi-
tions, 2139-T84 exhibits plastic deformation about 50%
lower than equivalent thickness of 5083-H131 armor.
Occupants of the vehicle experience significantly lower
impulse/impact during the explosive event. This reduc-
es the potential for injuries.
T84 (blast resistant) temper is generally used for the
underbelly of the armored vehicle and is obtained by
the end user through aging Keikor T34 at an elevated
temperature using a thermal treatment recipe supplied
by Constellium. Plate for the complex, heavily formed
bottom of the vehicle is supplied in T34 or an interme-
diate temper produced by solution heat treat (SHT)
and proprietary cold work of the plate. This results in
a product with high formability and low flow stresses
needed for the bending and forming processes. Form-
ability of alloy 2139 is illustrated in Figure 6. Constel-
lium is in partnerships with metal machine forming
facilities to optimize the fabrication needed to pro-
duce the required shapes. Older constructions utilized
welded structures or bolted constructions. Welds and
bolt holes introduce weak areas or stress raisers during
a blast event, which may cause perforation of the un-
derside of the vehicle with resultant intrusion of lethal
fragments into the crew compartment. Conversely, a
monolithic formed underside provides a much stron-
ger structure, which may plastically deform but will
survive a blast event without fracturing. This also mini-
mizes and limits welding activity to the less vulnerable
sections of the vehicle. Constellium developed welding
techniques using commonly available filler wires in the
2xxx and 4xxx weld wire family. Weldability of alloy
2139 provides an extra manufacturing flexibility not
readily attainable with 7xxx series alloys.
Several vehicles have been designed and fielded by
taking advantage of the ballistic and blast superiority of
2139. Specifics of the design of these vehicles are clas-
sified for security reasons. One example of a vehicle,
which was built using Keikor 2139 was the Concept for
Advanced Military Explosion-Mitigating Land (CAMEL)
program vehicle. The vehicle (Figure 7) was built by De-
troit, MI, based Pratt & Miller and was successfully tested
under various threat scenarios at the Army’s Tank Auto-
motive Research Development and Engineering Center
(TARDEC). This work was done in support of the Com-
bat Vehicle Prototype (CVP) platform.
In September 2016, it was announced that Constellium
will supply Keikor 2139 for TARDEC’s entire CVP inte-
grated hull capsule. Constellium’s manufacturing plant
in Ravenswood, WV, will supply the 2139 plate. Erik Pol-
sen, TARDEC’s chief engineer for CVP survivability, said
Constellium’s 2139 aluminum alloy “met the necessary
performance properties and characterized manufactur-
ing process for the performance and packaging require-
ments that we were looking for in our hull structure.”
Figure 5. Plastic deformation (buckling) during blast testing for Keikor
2139-T8 versus legacy alloys.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Deflection
Permanentdeflection(mm)
5083-H131
7020-T6
2139-T8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Deflection
Permanentdeflection(mm)
5083-H131
7020-T6
2139-T8
- 55%
5083-H131
7020-T6
2139-T8
Figure 6. Formability of 2139-T84 plate.
Figure 7. CAMEL vehicle.
Figure 4. Comparison of Keikor 2139 with multiple legacy alloys in
regards to V50 velocity for two threats—20 mm FSP and .50 Cal AP.